How much "Pauline" is the gerasene episode in Mark?

[Giuseppe]

Is not it decisively anomalous, the fact that the pauline 'Mark' (author) portrayes the Gerasene, after his healing by Jesus, as both:

• 1) the first apostle, in the fiction, to preach to Gentiles, hence at least the possibility of an allusion to Paul is raised

• 2) in negative terms insofar Jesus denies him the right to follow him in Judea.

I know about a possible (and even probable) midrash from Homer (the gerasene as the cycloph Polyphemus), in addition to a very probable midrash from a war event (the legion with the boar symbol, etc): in both the cases, the gerasene is described negatively as someone who preaches Jesus despite of the Jesus's reluctance about his preaching.

Thanks in advance for any answer.

[Giuseppe]

Now I understand the pauline point behind a so apparently anti-pauline episode in a paulinist gospel:

the Gerasene must not accompany Jesus across the lake, because the Gentiles do not have to become Jews to be followers of Jesus.

Hence the Gerasene is really Paul strictu senso or an allegory of Paul.

The passage is implicitly a confession that only Paul, preaching out the Judea, survives the Judea, left to Jews and to death (by Romans).

From this POV, just as the young naked escapes the death (=the garment), to become an angelic figure in the empty tomb, so the Gerasene escapes the death (=Judea), to become Paul in the gentile territory.

Hence, accordingly, Paul may well say (Galatians 4:14):

Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.

[rgprice]

I'll just say that Gerasene Demoniac and Acts 16:16-18 are related. I'm working on the details of how they are related.

[Giuseppe]

Acts 16:16-18 appears to be a judaization of the Gerasene episode in Mark. In both, the victim is healed twice: the first time, by being exorcised, the second time, by learning to preach in the "correct" sense.

The difference is that in Mark the corrected preaching takes a gentile direction, while in Acts the woman doesn't serve her (gentile) "owners by fortune-telling" but the Judaized Paul (of which the "highest god" is identified a priori with YHWH).

[rgprice]

I think the scene from Acts pre-dates the scene from Mark. The scene from Acts is part of the "we passages", and thus, I believe, part of a lost narrative about Paul. Mark derived his story from that narrative. The Gerasene Demoniac scene is derived from the scene in Acts.

[Giuseppe]

I agree with your theory about the trial of Paul in Acts pre-dating the Gospels, but frankly on this point I am skeptical.

[rgprice]

I agree with your theory about the trial of Paul in Acts pre-dating the Gospels, but frankly on this point I am skeptical.

That's ok It will all be laid out in the new book. I'm reconstructing a theoretical original source narrative about Paul from Acts. It uses pretty much only the "we passages", featuring Paul starting by crossing into Macedonia, traveling around, going to Jerusalem where is to be "handed over to the Gentiles". He goes on trial and is handed over to the Gentiles, who save him from the Jews (instead of killing him as in Mark) and he then travels on to Rome, where he spreads the Gospel under Gentile protection.

It's lots of fun

[robert j]

I agree with your theory about the trial of Paul in Acts pre-dating the Gospels, but frankly on this point I am skeptical.

That's ok It will all be laid out in the new book. I'm reconstructing a theoretical original source narrative about Paul from Acts. It uses pretty much only the "we passages", featuring Paul starting by crossing into Macedonia, traveling around, going to Jerusalem where is to be "handed over to the Gentiles". He goes on trial and is handed over to the Gentiles, who save him from the Jews (instead of killing him as in Mark) and he then travels on to Rome, where he spreads the Gospel under Gentile protection.

I'm not sure from your description of a "theoretical original source narrative". Do you see the scenario you are developing as actual events in Paul’s life? Or do you see them as subsequent legends and traditions that developed around the figure of Paul?

Just curious. I have no intent to follow-up on whatever your answer might be, at least for now.

[rgprice]

I'm not sure from your description of a "theoretical original source narrative". Do you see the scenario you are developing as actual events in Paul’s life? Or do you see them as subsequent legends and traditions that developed around the figure of Paul?

Just curious. I have no intent to follow-up on whatever your answer might be, at least for now.

It's just making use of the first-person text that exists in Acts, plus the trial. There are no inferences about the nature of the text, just that there was a text used by the writer of Acts. The content of that text is fairly easy to recover, because the writer of Acts didn't alter it much, he just surrounded it with additional material (how much he didn't use we don't know). When compared to Mark, very interesting parallels are clear. Those parallels, when they are recognized, are typically dismissed as the writer of Acts having borrowed from Mark. I consider that its not "Luke" borrowing from Mark, but rather Mark and Luke building from a "shared common source" (it pains me to use that phrase :p).